Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing Inference To The Best Explanation

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inference to the Best Explanation has become the subject of a livelydebate in the philosophy of science. Scientific realists maintain, while scientificantirealists deny, that it is a compelling rule of inference. It seems that anyattempt to settle this debate empirically must beg the question against theantirealist. The present paper argues that this impression is misleading. A methodis described that, by combining Glymour's theory of bootstrapping and Hacking'sarguments from microscopy, allows us to test IBE without begging any antirealistissues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bird, A.: 1998, Philosophy of Science, UCL Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R.: 1981, ‘Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology’, in P. Asquith and R. Giere (eds), PSA 1980, vol. II, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing MI, pp. 613–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R.: 1984, ‘The Current Status of Scientific Realism’, in Leplin (ed.) (1984), pp. 41–82.

  • Bueno, O. 1997, ‘Empirical Adequacy: A Partial Structures Approach’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 28, 585–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callebaut, W. (ed.): 1993, Taking the Naturalistic Turn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, D.: 1997, ‘What is Relative Confirmation?’, Noûs 31, 370–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. and C. Hooker (eds): 1985, Images of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, T. and H. Kincaid: 1994, ‘Putting Inference to the Best Explanation in its Place’, Synthese 98, 271–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, M.: 1991, Realism and Truth, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I.: 1995, ‘Boyd's Miraculous No Miracle Argument’, in P. Cortois (ed.), The Many Problems of Realism, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, The Netherlands, pp. 89–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I.: 1996, ‘A Paradox for Empiricism (?)’, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 63, S290–S297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I.: 1998, ‘Truly Empiricist Semantics’, Dialectica 52, 127–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I.: 1999, ‘Inference to the Best Explanation Made Coherent’, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 66, S424–S435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I.: 2000, ‘The Antirealist Argument for Underdetermination’, Philosophical Quarterly 50, 371–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I.: 2001, ‘A Passion for Realism’, Metascience, in press.

  • Douven, I.: 2002, ‘Empirical Equivalence, Explanatory Force, and the Inference to the Best Theory’, in A. Aliseda, R. Festa, and J. Peijnenburg (eds), Logics of Scientific Cognition: Essays in Debate with Theo Kuipers, Rodopi, Amsterdam, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I. and L. Horsten: 1998, ‘Earman on Underdetermination and Empirical Indistinguishability’, Erkenntnis 49, 303–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. (ed.): 1983, Testing Scientific Theories, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J.: 1993, ‘Underdetermination, Realism, and Reason’, in P. French, T. Uehling, Jr., and H. Wettstein (ed.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. XVIII, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. and C. Glymour: 1988, ‘What Revisions does Bootstrap Testing Need?’, Philosophy of Science 55, 260–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edidin, A.: 1983, ‘Bootstrapping without Bootstraps’, in Earman (ed.) (1983), pp. 43–54.

  • Fine, A.: 1991, ‘Piecemeal Realism’, Philosophical Studies 61, 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glymour, C.: 1980a, Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glymour, C.: 1980b, ‘Bootstraps and Probabilities’, Journal of Philosophy 67, 691–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glymour, C.: 1984, ‘Explanation and Realism’, in Leplin (ed.), (1984), pp. 173–192.

  • Hacking, I.: 1981, ‘Do We See Through a Microscope?’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62, 305–322. (Reprinted in Churchland and Hooker (eds) (1985), pp. 132–152; page references are to the reprint.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I.: 1983, Representing and Intervenintg, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G.: 1997, ‘Pragmatism and Reasons for Belief’, in C. Kulp (ed.), Realism/ Antirealism and Epistemology, Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, NJ, pp. 123–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R.: 1986, Varieties of Realism, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R.: 1988, ‘Realism and Ontology’, Philosophia Naturalis 25, 386–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1993, The Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, T.: 1984, ‘Approaching the Truth with the Rule of Success’, Philosophia Naturalis 21, 244–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, T.: 1992, ‘Naive and Refined Truth Approximation’, Synthese 93, 299–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, T.: 2000, From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, A.: 1994a, ‘Scientific Realism, Scientific Practice and the Natural Ontological Attitude’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45, 955–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, A.: 1994b, ‘Non-empirical Theoretical Virtues and the Argument of Underdetermination’, Erkenntnis 41, 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, A.: 1998, Studies in Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, A.: 2001, ‘Theoreticity, Underdetermination, and the Disregard for Bizarre Scientific Hypotheses’, Philosophy of Science 68, 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvanvig, J.: 1994, ‘A Critique of van Fraassen's Voluntaristic Epistemology’, Synthese 98, 325–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J.: 2000, ‘What's Really Wrong with Constructive Empiricism? Van Fraassen and the Metaphysics of Modality’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51, 837–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J., I. Douven, L. Horsten, and B. van Fraassen: 1997, ‘A Defence of van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Inference’, Philosophical Quarterly 47, 305–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. and J. Leplin: 1991, ‘Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination’, Journal of Philosophy 88, 449–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeds, S.: 1994, ‘Constructive Empiricism’, Synthese 101, 187–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leplin, J.: 1984, Scientific Realism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leplin, J.: 1997, A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leplin, J.: 2000, ‘The Epistemic Status of Auxiliary Hypotheses’, Philosophical Quarterly 50, 376–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, P.: 1991, Inference to the Best Explanation, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, P.: 1993, ‘Is the Best Good Enough?’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93, 89–104. (Reprinted in Papineau (ed.) (1996), pp. 93–106; the page reference is to the reprint.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R.: 1987, Fact and Method, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, A.: 1988, ‘The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism’, in R. Nola (ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 229–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niiniluoto, I.: 1998, ‘Verisimilitude: The Third Period’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niiniluoto, I.: 1999, ‘Defending Abduction’, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 66, S436–S451.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Hear, A.: 1989, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

  • Okasha, S.: 1997, ‘Laudan and Leplin on Empirical Equivalence’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48, 251–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S.: 2000, ‘Van Fraassen's Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31, 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papineau, D. (ed.): 1996, The Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S.: 1996, ‘On van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Reasoning’, Philosophical Quarterly 46, 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S.: 1999, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S.: 2000, ‘The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51, 705–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H.: 1975, Mathematics, Matter and Method (Philosophical Papers, vol. I), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, R. and R. Pierson: 1995, ‘Hacking's Experimental Realism: An Untenable Middle Ground’, Philosophy of Science 62, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, G.: 1994, ‘What is Constructive Empiricism?’, Philosophical Studies 74, 143–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W.: 1990, ‘Rationality and Objectivity or Tom Kuhn Meets Tom Bayes’, in C. Wade Savage (ed.), Scientific Theories, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 175–204. (Reprinted in Papineau (ed.) (1996), pp. 256–289; the page reference is to the reprint.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager, W.: 1995, ‘Ground Truth and Virtual Reality: Hacking vs. van Fraassen’, Philosophy of Science 62, 439–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teller, P.: 1973, ‘Conditionalization and Observation’, Synthese 26, 218–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1983a, ‘Theory Comparison and Relevant Evidence’, in Earman (ed.) (1983), pp. 27–42.

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1983b), ‘Glymour on Evidence and Explanation’, in Earman (ed.) (1983), pp. 165–176.

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1985, ‘Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science’, in Churchland and Hooker (eds) (1985), pp. 245–308.

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vineberg, S.: 1998), ‘Inference to the Best Explanation and Theoretical Entities’, paper delivered at the 1998 PSA meeting, Kansas City.

  • Zwart, S.: 2001, Refined Verisimilitude, Kluwer, Dordrecht, in press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Igor Douven

Authors
  1. Igor Douven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Douven, I. Testing Inference To The Best Explanation. Synthese 130, 355–377 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014859910339

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014859910339

Keywords

Search

Navigation